On Monday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a precedential decision in Nguyen v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology et al. (SJC-12329), which addresses the complicated issue of higher education institutions’ responsibility to protect students at risk of suicide.

The plaintiff sued MIT and several professors and deans for the wrongful death of his son, who committed suicide as an MIT graduate student, alleging that MIT was negligent in not preventing his son’s suicide. The case presented a somewhat novel question regarding the obligations of a university to intervene where a student appears or is known to be a suicide risk. The SJC held that in certain circumstances, there may be “a special relationship and a corresponding duty to take reasonable measures to prevent suicide” between a university and its student. However, in this case, there was no such duty, and the court affirmed the lower court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of MIT.

The decision sets a new standard for universities in handling at-risk students. Although the SJC acknowledged that, as a general rule, there is no duty to prevent another from committing suicide, it concluded that in some circumstances, a special relationship may impose affirmative duties of suicide prevention. Rejecting the past notion of schools as “in loco parentis,” the SJC reasoned that universities “are not responsible for monitoring and controlling all aspects of their students’ lives,” and acknowledged that students have an expectation of and right to privacy regarding their mental health records and personal mental health decisions. Nonetheless, universities are “clearly not bystanders or strangers in regards to their students,” and have deep involvement in all aspects of a student’s life, which may give rise to an affirmative duty of suicide prevention.

Based on this reasoning, the SJC held that a university has a special relationship with a student and a corresponding duty to take reasonable measures to prevent his or her suicide where the university “has actual knowledge of a student’s suicide attempt that occurred while enrolled at the university or recently before matriculation, or of a student’s stated plans or intentions to commit suicide.” This duty “hinges on foreseeability” and actual knowledge. In these circumstances, the university has a duty to take “reasonable measures under the circumstances to protect the student from self-harm.”

In its opinion, the SJC provided some guidance on what “reasonable measures” means:

For universities that do not have such a protocol, “the university employee who learns of the student’s suicide attempt or stated plans or intentions to commit suicide” must “contact the appropriate officials at the university empowered to assist the student in obtaining clinical care from medical professionals or, if the student refuses such care, to notify the student’s emergency contact.”

If the situation is deemed an “emergency,” reasonable measures include “contacting police, fire, or emergency medical personnel.”

The court implied that universities have no duty to affirmatively prevent suicide; instead, the limited duty extends only to taking “the reasonable measures under the circumstances presented,” and is “time-bound” in the sense that no duty is present if a medical professional has determined that a student is no longer a suicide risk.

This standard leaves open several questions for higher education institutions in interpreting the scope of their duty, including:

How far back does “recently before matriculation” go?

Should (and may) higher education institutions inquire about students’ prior mental health issues of students directly, or of their prior educational institutions?

When will a student no longer be considered a suicide risk after a prior suicide attempt or plan?

Moving forward, the lower courts in Massachusetts may be asked to answer some of these questions to provide further clarity on the scope of higher education institutions’ duties.

Attorneys from Mintz Levin’s Education Industry Group are available to help universities assess their policies and protocols to ensure compliance with this new standard and to address a host of other legal challenges facing educational institutions. For assistance, please contact the author or another professional in our Education Industry Group.

]]>Employee Benefits & the New Overtime Ruleshttps://www.eduinstitutionlaw.com/2016/09/employee-benefits-the-new-overtime-rules/
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:02:37 +0000https://www.eduinstitutionlaw.com/?p=1072Continue Reading]]>Our colleague Patricia Moran wrote an excellent post on our sister blog, Employment Matters. Moran notes that employers should consider changes to their compensation structures that will affect their employee benefit plans. The post highlights several employee benefits issues that employers involved at educational institutions should consider as the December 1 deadline approaches. To read more about these new rules, click here. You can also read about the overtime rules’ impact on educational institutions here.
]]>Webinar: The Future of Executive Compensation for Tax-Exempt Entities Under Recently Proposed 457(f) Regulationshttps://www.eduinstitutionlaw.com/2016/09/webinar-the-future-of-executive-compensation-for-tax-exempt-entities-under-recently-proposed-457f-regulations/
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:01:22 +0000https://www.eduinstitutionlaw.com/?p=1074Continue Reading]]>Please join us on September 29th at 1 pm ET as we cover the recently proposed 457(f) regulations. This one-hour webinar will offer employers more than just a summary of the rule. It will also offer unique insights on the rule’s impact, cover historical context, and go over the proposed regulations in further depth.

If you have any questions you would like us to address, please email them to me at ajbianchi@mintz.com in advance of the webinar.

]]>National Labor Relations Board Grants Student Assistants the Right to Unionize at Private Colleges and Universitieshttps://www.eduinstitutionlaw.com/2016/08/national-labor-relations-board-grants-student-assistants-the-right-to-unionize-at-private-colleges-and-universities/
Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:52:52 +0000https://www.eduinstitutionlaw.com/?p=1067Continue Reading]]>Our colleague Dan Long recently contributed an article to Employment Matters titled, “National Labor Relations Board Grants Student Assistants the Right to Unionize at Private Colleges and Universities” that highlights the National Labor Relations Board’s ruling that student assistants have unionization and collective bargaining rights under the National Labor Relations Act. This ruling ultimately reversed its 2004 decision in Brown University, which withheld graduate students from unionization rights due to the fact that they were not considered employees under the NLRA. For an in-depth explanation of the Board’s ultimatum, click here.
]]>Educational Institutions Targeted in Fraudulent Payment Requestshttps://www.eduinstitutionlaw.com/2016/08/educational-institutions-targeted-in-fraudulent-payment-requests/
Fri, 26 Aug 2016 18:02:47 +0000https://www.eduinstitutionlaw.com/?p=1062Continue Reading]]>Educational institutions should be aware of fraudulent request for payments from vendors. The FBI Boston Division identified three incidents over the past month where perpetrators submitted fraudulent transfer authorization forms to divert payments to Boston area colleges and universities. The perpetrators portrayed themselves as construction companies and sent emails/letters with instructions requesting payments to be made by wire to a bank account. The requests typically look like they are from a contractor or vendor providing services. They simulate the logo or email/web site address of the vendor. For example:

A big red flag is if the vendor has historically been paid by check and you receive communication where they would like you to start sending payment by wire immediately.

If you receive a request to change payment information from check to wire, contact the requesting party to confirm before changes are made. For additional information on how to protect your organization from fraud, please visit our Privacy and Security Matters Blog for information and our upcoming webinar series.

]]>Fostering Financial Aid Literacy in Students: H.R. 3179https://www.eduinstitutionlaw.com/2016/08/fostering-financial-aid-literacy-in-students-h-r-3179/
Fri, 05 Aug 2016 15:56:39 +0000https://www.eduinstitutionlaw.com/?p=1041Continue Reading]]>This is the sixth and final installment in a series examining five bipartisan bills advanced by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on June 22, 2016 and approved by the full House of Representatives on July 11, 2016. While unlikely to be taken up by the Senate this year, the bills will help to frame the discussion for reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) in the upcoming 115th Congress.

The original post briefly summarizing all five bills was posted in Education Matters on June 24, 2016.

Introduced by Reps. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) and Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act (H.R. 3179) is intended to improve financial aid counseling standards for students seeking federal student loans. Specifically, H.R. 3179 would replace the current requirement for entrance counseling for first-time student loan borrowers with a requirement for annual counseling. The bill also expands the counseling from solely student borrowers to those students who are federal Pell Grant recipients and parent PLUS Loan borrowers. The counseling would include information on the terms, conditions, and responsibilities for grants and loans, as well as other financial topics such as the right to request an annual credit report. In addition to providing counseling to students as they begin their college careers, the bill requires exit counseling that would cover the outstanding loan balance, expected monthly payments, the grace period preceding payment, the option to pay accrued interest before it capitalizes, the right to request an annual credit report, and contact information for the loan servicer.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, while it would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits, implementation of the bill would cost $2 million for the Department of Education’s administrative expenses during the years 2017-2027 should funds be appropriated.

The bipartisan bill has 38 cosponsors equally divided among Republicans and Democrats.

H.R. 3179 is supported by the National Education Association.

]]>Choice is Knowledge: H.R. 3178https://www.eduinstitutionlaw.com/2016/07/choice-is-knowledge-h-r-3178/
Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:20:40 +0000https://www.eduinstitutionlaw.com/?p=1039Continue Reading]]>This is the fifth installment in a series examining five bipartisan bills advanced by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on June 22, 2016 and approved by the full House of Representatives on July 11, 2016. While unlikely to be taken up by the Senate this year, the bills will help to frame the discussion for reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) in the upcoming 115th Congress.

The original post briefly summarizing all five bills was posted in Education Matters on June 24, 2016.

The Strengthening Transparency in Higher Education Act (H.R. 3178), introduced by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), would modify consumer information disclosure requirements related to college costs and student characteristics in order to assist students in making informed decisions about where to pursue higher education. To achieve this goal, the bill would:

Create a new consumer-tested College Dashboard to provide data on colleges and universities that participate in federal student loan and grant scholarships, displaying data on enrollment, completion rates, costs, financial aid, student debt, and graduate wages.

Require college financial aid websites to offer students a link to the net price calculator for higher education institutions, with calculator results offering students information on attendance costs, available student aid, the percentage of students at the institutions receiving student aid, as well as information on veterans benefits.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementation of the bill would cost $1 million from Fiscal Year 2017 through Fiscal Year 2021.

]]>Renovating the Past, Constructing the Future: H.R. 5530https://www.eduinstitutionlaw.com/2016/07/renovating-the-past-constructing-the-future-h-r-5530/
Thu, 21 Jul 2016 18:52:21 +0000https://www.eduinstitutionlaw.com/?p=1035Continue Reading]]>This is the fourth installment in a series examining five bipartisan bills advanced by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on June 22, 2016 and approved by the full House of Representatives on July 11, 2016. While unlikely to be taken up by the Senate, the bills will help to frame the discussion for reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) in the upcoming 115th Congress.

The original post briefly summarizing all five bills was posted in Education Matters on June 24, 2016.

The HBCU Capital Financing Improvement Act (H.R. 5530), introduced by Reps. Alma Adams (D-NC) and Bradley Byrne (R-AL), is intended to increase access to capital by Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) by making changes to the HBCU Capital Financing Program which provides low-cost capital to finance improvements to campus infrastructure at HBCUs. Acting as a loan guarantee program to finance repairs, renovations, and construction of critical campus buildings, the program receives contributions from 40 HBCUs and typically offers loans ranging between $10 million and $20 million.

H.R. 5530 is intended to improve the program by:

Requiring the program’s Advisory Board to submit an annual report to Congress, providing an overview of all loans in the program, along with administrative and legislative recommendations for additional program improvements.

Increase access to the program by reclassifying the escrow account as a bond insurance fund so that more institutions can participate.

Authorizing the Department of Education to provide counseling to HBCUs in the preparation to qualify for, apply for, and maintain a capital improvement loan.

H.R. 5530 is supported by the American Council on Education, the National Association of College & University Business Officers, the Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities, the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, the National Association of Independent Colleges & Universities, the National Education Association, the American Association of State Colleges & Universities, the Hispanic Association of Colleges & Universities, the American Association of Collegiate Registrars & Admissions Officers, Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund, the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Governing Boards of Universities & Colleges, and the Council for Opportunity in Education.

]]>Expanding Access and Encouraging Health Care: H.R. 5529https://www.eduinstitutionlaw.com/2016/07/expanding-access-and-encouraging-health-care-h-r-5529/
Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:56:39 +0000https://www.eduinstitutionlaw.com/?p=1030Continue Reading]]>This is the third installment in a series examining five bipartisan bills advanced by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on June 22, 2016. The original post briefly summarizing all five bills was posted in Education Matters on June 24, 2016.

Offers students in secondary schools the opportunity to participate in dual enrollment programs at Hispanic-serving institutions, with the goal of boosting college acceptance of Hispanic students while providing the opportunity to begin earning academic credits earlier.

Supports student support programs – such as advising, counseling, and mentoring – by allowing Hispanic-serving institutions to use federal funds to encourage the successful advancement of students from four-year institutions to doctoral degree programs in the health care field.

Authorizes nearly $108 million to carry out the provisions of the bill in Fiscal Year 2016.

H.R. 5529 is supported by the National Education Association.

All five bipartisan bills have been approved by the House of Representatives, but are unlikely to be considered by the Senate.

]]>Fear No FAFSA: H.R. 5528https://www.eduinstitutionlaw.com/2016/07/fear-no-fafsa-h-r-5528/
Fri, 08 Jul 2016 15:50:22 +0000https://www.eduinstitutionlaw.com/?p=1026Continue Reading]]>This is the second installment in a series examining five bipartisan bills advanced by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on June 22, 2016. The original post summarizing all five bills was posted in Education Matters on June 24, 2016.

The Simplifying the Application for Student Aid Act (H.R. 5528), introduced by Reps. Joe Heck (R-NV), Phil Roe (R-TN), Jared Polis (D-CO), and Mark Pocan (D-WI), aims at helping students make timely financial decisions when preparing for college. The bill seeks to implement reforms to the federal student aid process by ensuring that the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) continues to be available to future students, simplifying the FAFSA for student aid applicants, and providing more time for student aid administrators to verify the income of those applying for financial aid.

More specifically, H.R. 5528:

Ensures that students completing the FAFSA are able to use income data from two years prior to the date of application. Known as prior-prior year, this process alleviates a real burden on students since income tax data from the previous year is typically not available at the time these students are completing the FAFSA. The prior-prior year process allows students to receive notification of their expected federal financial assistance months before the start of the school year. For students relying on financial assistance, this lead time in knowing what resources are available is often critical to planning for the school year. H.R. 5528 ensures that this option is available to students by making it a requirement rather than an option.

Requires the Department of Education to simplify the FAFSA application process by enabling applicant students to import income data through the Internal Revenue Service. This simplification in the application process would help to overcome the complexity of the FAFSA which deters some students from applying and receiving available federal financial assistance. The bill also directs the Secretary of Education to make the FAFSA forms available via a technology tool on mobile devices.

Provides student aid administrators with additional time to verify the income of federal financial aid applicants, strengthening the integrity of the application process and ensuring that financial aid goes to the most deserving students.

Allows for earlier determination of maximum Pell Grant awards so that students have accurate aid information as soon as possible.

Requires the Secretary of Education to submit at least every ten years a report on the needs of limited English proficient students using the FAFSA.

Designates $3 million of the authorized funds for FAFSA to be used for the provisions of the bill.

H.R. 5528 is supported by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars & Admissions Officers, Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, American Indian Higher Education Consortium, American Council on Education, National Association of College & University Business Officers, Association of Public Land-Grant Universities, National Association of Independent Colleges & Universities, National Education Association, American Association of State Colleges & Universities, Hispanic Association of Colleges & Universities, Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, Association of American Universities, Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, Association of Governing Boards of Universities & Colleges, American Association of Community Colleges, Association of Community College Trustees, Council for Opportunity in Education, National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, and the Association of Jesuit Colleges & Universities.

With an increasingly tight legislative calendar for the remainder of 2016, H.R. 5528 could be taken up by the full House this Congress, but it is unlikely to be considered by the Senate. If the bill does not become law this year, it will help to frame the discussion for reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) in the upcoming 115th Congress.